This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.

You deleted the actual dharani! The various versions were very useful and I think they should remain although the presentation should change. Also, your edits are rather unencyclopediac and although I am a Mahayana Buddhist with full confidence in Avalokitesvara's dharani, I find the mention of the benefits of chanting really unnecessary and superstitious. Jmlee369 10:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't see the point of offering a 'Sanskrit' version when it is roman script and no diacritics. That isn't really Sanskrit, or at least it is Sanskrit spelt wrong. Anyone have that version spelt right? mahaabaala (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Namo/नमो is Adoration is nama/namah/नम/नमह् is to bow. Please correct this if it is wrong. Beelerb (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Beelerb: You don't seem to understand that the underlying form NAMA appears on the surface as both namo and namah depending on sandhi rules. The form a_a does not appear in Sanskrit normally; sandhi rules describe the changes that appear. The translation for "nama", the underlying form, is "salutation", so the translation "bow" is close although probably we should stick to "salutation". In short, there is only one word where you claim there are two separate ones, and that word is nama, which appears with different endings depending on what sounds follow it. Some of the translations quoted in the article are in fact bad Sanskrit, either done at the time or a modern error (both are likely). For example, Ehy mahā... is an impossible cluster and is clearly an error. HYM is not a valid string in Sanskrit. Ogresssmash! 17:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh right so how about we change that to "salutation", which I believe is the more conservative of the translations. Ogresssmash! 17:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The mistakes are too numerous to list. In external links is a paper by Prof. Lokesh Chandra that shows some of these mistakes. Under "Difference between Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese versions" there are huge chunks of text missing and some of the words and tone marks on Chú đại bi are wrong. Numerous places where the Latinized Sanskrit is missing tone marks too. Also according to the article cited above Lokesh Chandra says DT Suziku's translation is wrong because he mixed source material (Sanskrit and Siddhaṃ texts). A cursory translation of Siddhaṃ script of Chinese Tripitaka seems to verify this claim yet not noted in the article. - Beelerb (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Beelerb: If you have cites for his corrections that'd be a lovely addition because I agree that at minimum, the Sanskrit has errors. Tone marks don't normally appear on post-Vedic Sanskrit, and I've never seen them in Buddhist texts, which are predominantly subject to the total loss of Sanskrit tone given that it did not appear in the speech of Buddha (who did not speak Sanskrit as far as we are aware) or in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit: do you mean marks like vowel length and distinguishing features of consonants? In any case, if you can correct the Vietnamese et alia I am not a native speaker of any of the above languages and it'd be lovely. Just be sure to cite. Ogresssmash! 17:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)